One of the most controversial changes gave the chief the ability to fire members of the force. His discipline authority now stops at 30-day suspensions; anything further is in the hands of an appointed Police Commission.

"It's kind of unusual for the boss not to be able to fire somebody," Gaudett said during an afternoon interview.

The contract dispute -- now over a year old -- will head back to arbitration, said Sgt. Chuck Paris, the union president.

Paris declined to share the vote tally after the counting concluded around 5:20 p.m. The union has 429 members.

Asked if he was disappointed, Paris said, "Absolutely."

But both he and Gaudett said they had expected a close vote.

The few officers willing to speak after casting their ballots at City Hall characterized the situation as a lose-lose.

"Nobody's happy about it," one officer said. "Do you take garbage or get worse (in arbitration)?"

That officer had cast a "reluctant" vote in favor of the proposed contract.

Another police officer said the new contract "benefits the city, not the citizens or the police officers who work hard."

"We're giving up too much and not getting anything in return," the officer said.

Gaudett and Mayor Bill Finch have publicly complained that the current police contract does not allow the chief enough flexibility to properly manage the department.

"This is something I've been working very hard on," Gaudett said earlier Tuesday. "In years past, emphasis has been on wages and benefits, to the detriment of the rest of the contract."

The Finch administration was also hoping to be able to boast about reaching a deal with one of the city's larger unions. The current city budget that expires June 30 counted on $2 million worth of concessions from city employees, suggested as 6.5 furlough days apiece. But as of earlier this spring, only $702,437 of that hole had been filled, the bulk of it by the firefighters, who in March agreed to $460,000 worth of concessions as part of a new four-year-contract

While copies of the proposed police contract were not readily available, Gaudett and Paris individually confirmed some of the highlights.

Officers would have received 2.5 percent pay raises each year. In return, Paris said, his members were giving back a total of $650,000 in concessions and agreeing to big changes.

"We think the wages are fair," Paris said. "There's so many changes in there, it's making it difficult for our officers to get a handle on everything ... Our board worked really hard to try to bring this back to membership."

Unlimited sick time would have been cut to 15 days annually under the rejected contract, and retiring officers would have been able to sell half of their unused sick leave back to the city.

The department would also have had eight shifts, rather than four. Gaudett said that would improve policing -- "We can put the right number of people in the right place, at the right time" -- and also cut down on overtime.

For Gaudett, the most important change would have given him greater power to discipline his men and women. The chief is frequently criticized for not doing enough when his officers make headlines for causing trouble rather than solving crimes.

"It would take (the Police Commission) out of the discipline process," Gaudett said. "It would go from the chief to an arbitrator."

One police officer complained after voting Tuesday that some of the changes unfairly hurt veterans of the force.

"I don't like the `third floor' (the administrative offices) saying they can hire or fire or put anybody, anyplace they want, without (considering) seniority," said the officer.

Paris himself was not in love with the deal, and said he wanted to avoid leaving it up to an arbitrator.

Asked what they would prefer -- a "yes" vote or having the contract return to arbitration -- an officer exiting City Hall said, "I'd be worried, honestly, both ways."